www.ditl.org

Hopefully.

Still again if he did that the hammer would be brought down on N Korea. If he'd blow up Seoul with conventional weapons if it means his doom why would he feel restrained from doing the same with a nuke if the mood took him.

Eh? That's not what I was saying.
Kim isn't going to blast South Korea into rubble unless someone else attacks him first. That's the exact reason why no country has tried to forcefully overthrow him.
Even if he gets nukes, it'll still be the exact same situation. He won't attack, because he knows that if he does he's screwed. The only thing that would happen if NK got nukes is that they start rattling their sabres a bit louder.

NK having nukes is not that bad. NK giving them to others is.

Rochey wrote: Eh? That's not what I was saying.
Kim isn't going to blast South Korea into rubble unless someone else attacks him first. That's the exact reason why no country has tried to forcefully overthrow him.
Even if he gets nukes, it'll still be the exact same situation. He won't attack, because he knows that if he does he's screwed. The only thing that would happen if NK got nukes is that they start rattling their sabres a bit louder.

But while an attack just a single surgical strike doesn't doom him. In fact it leaves him back where he was before he went for nukes.

But where are you getting that NK doesn't have nukes. They say they have nukes. They've done test detonations to prove it. I think the US just let that one go.

But while an attack just a single surgical strike doesn't doom him. In fact it leaves him back where he was before he went for nukes.

Here's the thing, how does he know he's not facing a full-scale attack?
Do you inform him beforehand that you're going to make a strike against him? Then he just hides anything of value where it can't be found, and threatens to level Seuol if you do attack, putting you back in the exact same position as before.
Do you not inform him, and strike in secret? Then he'll think he's facing a full-scale attack and Seuol disappears.

There's a reason that no military action has ever been taken against NK, there's way too much risk involved. Any action against NK will be diplomatic and economic. That's how it's always gone, and it's the only way it can go if you don't want to risk millions getting killed.

But where are you getting that NK doesn't have nukes. They say they have nukes. They've done test detonations to prove it. I think the US just let that one go.

I think Seafort or Kendall posted proof in a thread a while back that the tests weren't nukes. I'll try to look that up again.
Even if they were nukes, that just further proves my point. The US knew they couldn't make a strike against him. They dealt with it in other ways.

Hooray for the US! We didn't "shoot first and ask questions later" - for once.

We could if we had phasers. And it would work.

I still think it has a rather lot to do with them not being able to threaten us. I think they've threatened Australia though.

And we're ringing them with anti missile systems. Which we might have wanted in the area anyway.

I still think it has a rather lot to do with them not being able to threaten us.

Neither was 99% of all the countries the US has gotten itself involved with.
It has to do with the US being able to see that intervening in NK would just fuck the region up even more. They've no interest in going in, it would gain them nothing, and would cause a lot of chaos.

I think they've threatened Australia though.

I think they've threatened everyone, especialy the US.

And we're ringing them with anti missile systems. Which we might have wanted in the area anyway.

Yes, and? That ain't going to stop Seuol and every other major city in SK getting flattened by artilary shells.

Neither was 99% of all the countries the US has gotten itself involved with.
It has to do with the US being able to see that intervening in NK would just **** the region up even more. They've no interest in going in, it would gain them nothing, and would cause a lot of chaos.

This is pretty much the first point where I disagreed with you Rochey. You are now operating off an assumption of deep competence within the Bush Administration's decisionmaking/cabinet staff. They looked like total fools when they were going on and on about WMD and the potential for developing them as an excuse to go into Iraq, only to have North Korea start dancing around saying "Hey! Hey guys! *WE* got the nuke!" You could almost see all their faces turn kinda gray as they ignored it completely and continued to insist Iraq was the threat.

Arguments that it was "smarter" not to tangle with N. Korea are beside the point and after the fact. Because if the Bush Admin had reacted to N. Korea's REAL development of WMD at all proportionately to how it reacted to the PURPORTED/fabricated intel on Iraqi WMD, we'd have started attacks immediately without any preplanning or second thought. Again, if the Bush Admin had been true to form. Or if N. Korea had tons of oil.

Rochey wrote:

And we're ringing them with anti missile systems. Which we might have wanted in the area anyway.

Yes, and? That ain't going to stop Seuol and every other major city in SK getting flattened by artilary shells.

I mean we might want anti ballistic missile in the vicinity of China or Russia and this gives us an excuse.

I have to go with Dusk on this one. I tend to believe that any intelligence and reason shown in dealing with NK by the Bush asministration is purely coincidental.

Dusk wrote:This is pretty much the first point where I disagreed with you Rochey. You are now operating off an assumption of deep competence within the Bush Administration's decisionmaking/cabinet staff.

Ah, my sincere apologies. I'll make sure I don't make that particular mistake again.

Sunny wrote:I mean we might want anti ballistic missile in the vicinity of China or Russia and this gives us an excuse.

What gives you an excuse for what?
Are you saying that wanting to install an ABM system gives you an excuse to invade NK?

Ah, my sincere apologies. I'll make sure I don't make that particular mistake again.

Err... YEAH! Um.... gah! Spit!! hiss! Grumble!

Don't let it happen again! What HE said!

Rochey wrote: What gives you an excuse for what?
Are you saying that wanting to install an ABM system gives you an excuse to invade NK?

No I think we want an ABM system in case any number of actors in the region decide to get upity.

The only thing better than mutually assured anihilation is not mutually assured annihilation.